[Open Design + Hardware] Open Design Definition @ OKFestival 2014
massimo.menichinelli at aalto.fi
Sat May 24 16:18:35 UTC 2014
Il 12/05/14 22:56, Dr. Peter Troxler ha scritto:
> Expanding on that: Alastair Fuad-Luke reports finding it hard to involve fashion designers in an “open fashion” project (despite fashion recognized as a “low-ip” field of design, ). At various conferences I found designers blurring or even confusing their role of social activists and professional designers in social interventions (most recently at the Cumulus conference in Aveiro, PT).
In my lecturing experience, I haven't found any problems in motivating
the students in releasing their project as open source (and the students
were mostly designers but with different backgrounds). Only one person
did not want to realease a 700 Mb file. It maybe depends on many
factors, but often there are questions regarding IP and Open Design, so
this is an important topic.
> I am arguing (in a model developed with colleagues) that “open” has two dimensions, open access and open contribution and that the discussion on open design has been focused too much on the “access” dimension and not sufficiently on the “contribution” dimension — or in more detail: that the contribution dimension stops at “co-design” or any other designer-led format but fails to develop “open design” beyond a situation where designers are not in the lead (for the sake of the argument I understand “facilitation” as “lead”). Imho, in a real open design situation designers should only provide the methods, but not apply/execute them (facilitation).
I agree on the difference between "open access" and "open contribution",
this is something that we can add to the definition. At the moment I
just added a quick note to the design process part: feel free to commet
here with an e-mail or on the link, I will bring it to the definition:
Personally, I've always been interested in making Open Design the
outcome of a collaborative process, rather than a single person project
(but both are possible so both should be part of the definition), so I
agree on the difference between access and contribution (the whole open
p2p design first and open metadesign rearch later focuses on making a
collaborative participation in the open design process possible).
Regarding the idea that designers should only facilitate and not really
work in open design projects: this is an interesting point that needs
further discussion and research (I don't agree at the moment: Open
Design should also be for designers! Maybe the problem lays in finding
the right motivations for them to participate in Open Design). But
regardless of the opinion, both possibilities should be in the definition.
How can we expand this in the definition?
mobile: (ITA) +39 3402971655
Metadesign for Open Systems, Processes, Projects
More information about the opendesign